On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:52:41AM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
...
>
> By the same argument I presume the existing THP "AnonHugePages" smaps field
> is not accounted for in the {Private,Shared}_... fields?
> I.E. AnonHugePages may also benefit from splitting to Private/Shared?
smaps_pmd_entry() not only increments mss->anonymous_thp, but also calls
smaps_account() which updates mss->anonymous, mss->referenced and
mss->{shared,private}_{clean,dirty}, so thp's shared/private characteristic
is included in other existing fields.
I think that even if we know the thp-specific shared/private profiles, it
might be hard to do something beneficial using that information, so I feel
keeping this field as-is is ok for now.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi��.n������g��� �a��� �&ޖ)���)��h���&������梷���� �Ǟ�m������)������^�����������v���O��zf������